Parkinson v Lewis & Ors [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) (18 March 2016)

Parkinson v Lewis & Ors [2016] EWHC 725 (QB) (18 March 2016)

The failure of the first three respondents to have their nomination papers subscribed by electors for the relevant ward was a breach of a mandatory statutory requirement. This rendered their election invalid. The saving provision in section 48 of the 1983 Act does not apply to breaches by candidates, only to officials. The court has no power to declare the petitioner or others elected in place of the respondents. The election for the Over ward is void and must be rerun.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 725
Parties
Petitioner: Charles John Parkinson; First Respondent: Gina Lewis; Second Respondent: Graham Cawley; Third Respondent: Margaret Dolphin; Fourth Respondent (returning Officer): Steve Robinson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; election for Over ward declared void; no declaration that petitioner is elected; costs awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
Local Government Elections, Nomination Papers, Electoral Procedure, Statutory Interpretation, Election Petitions, Costs
Election Law Administrative Law Local Government Elections Nomination Papers Electoral Procedure Statutory Interpretation Election Petitions Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles John Parkinson

Petitioner

Gina Lewis

First Respondent

Graham Cawley

Second Respondent

Margaret Dolphin

Third Respondent

Steve Robinson

Fourth Respondent (returning Officer)

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure of candidates' nomination papers to comply with Rule 6 of the Local Election (Parishes and Communities) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 (i.e., proposers/seconders not being electors for the relevant ward) renders their election void
  2. 2 Whether the saving provision in section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 applies to such breaches by candidates
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to declare the petitioner duly elected in place of the respondents

Ratio Decidendi

The failure of the first three respondents to have their nomination papers subscribed by electors for the relevant ward was a breach of a mandatory statutory requirement. This rendered their election invalid. The saving provision in section 48 of the 1983 Act does not apply to breaches by candidates, only to officials. The court has no power to declare the petitioner or others elected in place of the respondents. The election for the Over ward is void and must be rerun.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; election for Over ward declared void; no declaration that petitioner is elected; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The election for the Over ward is declared void and must be rerun.
  • Petitioner awarded 75% of his costs: 25% to be paid by the returning officer, 50% by the first and second respondents, several liability.